• vampire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    That was super interesting, I love talking about this sort of thing. Really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply.

    It seems like our conceptions of vampirism differ in how far from human-ness vampirism takes the host. In my mind, vampirism takes the host just far enough away from human-ness that they can never live like a human again, but not far enough that they wouldn’t want to. The reason it’s a curse is because they’re so torn, kind of like drug addiction in a sense. Being addicted to meth is probably torment, but doing meth is ecstasy, so a meth addict might viscerally want to go back to a normal life but at the same time viscerally never want to give up what they have. I think breathing, among a lot of other things (like wearing clothes, drinking wine, conversation, etc) are totally unnecessary physiologically, but absolutely necessary to maintain the appearance of a human, which in turn is necessary for the psychological well being of a vampire. I think without these things (or without blood too) they convert to the monster form, becoming more and more distorted as time goes on without their needs met. Their mind also becomes more and more animalistic, but only to the point that they are confused and scared, never fully immersed in the monster mentality. Like they’re aware of how much brain function they’ve lost which is terrifying. Due to how blood deprivation and social deprivation have essentially the same physical toll, I think their “psychic” nourishment is as important as their blood intake and thus not breathing could be not only the medulla oblongata panicking but also a form of supernatural psychic damage to them.

    Also, I’ve never seen Buffy. Should I watch it? I absolutely loooove vampire movies and shows. I’ve exhausted everything that is obviously going to satisfy me already so I need to look to others for more recommendations. My favorite vampire movies are Only Lovers Left Alive, Byzantium, Interview with the Vampire, and the original Dracula. Hbu?

    • OpenStars@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There is this one episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where a bunch of kids want to become vampires, so they invite a vampire to “turn” them. Ofc the vampire has no intention of actually doing that, but they were all too happy to have the free meals. So as it starts feasting on the people, Buffy was trying to get the others to flee, but they were so ensconced in their belief structure that they would not leave. She had to tell them how “you” can never become a vampire: all you can do is die, and leave your body for someone “else” to take it up - some other entity, a non-human “person” if you will, who may if we are being truthful look a lot like the one that they replaced, but it’s all an act.

      There is one exemption in that world-universe, where Angel is a human-turned-vampire-turned-human-possessing-the-vampire-body, but the point there is that such a thing is by all accounts the exception, not the rule, and more generally: that vampires and humans are two literal species of beings, so that a human can never “become” a vampire, in the strictest sense, and certainly that is not what happens during the regular “turning” process.

      Which I find fascinating b/c in other genres, like Blade and that Netflix Castlevania anime and Underworld, vampirism is more like something “genetic”, and you can even get mutations where like Blade himself is half-human, half-vampire, and there is a mostly-physical explanation for that relating to genes that offer some traits and other genes that offer other ones. Underworld even takes it up a notch and introduces like half-vampire, half-werewolf:-). And those “mostly-physical” explanations stand in high stark contrast to the John Carpenter movies, and the older Dracula ones, and the show Being Human, etc. where the explanation is “mostly spiritual/occult” where like vampires (those of high-enough status anyway) can literally fly, and there’s telepathy and all sorts of extra stuff. But anyway, whether physical or occult, these all share in common that a human being actually can become a vampire, unlike in the Buffy-verse.

      And then that opens up a whole new plethora of options: like what if you felt like you had a cold so you went to bed early one night, died, then woke up having just eaten your most-loved family members? In the Buffy-verse, the vampire soul now possessing “your” body (while the actual “you” has already moved on to wherever souls go - the afterlife) just laughs, but in these others, it is you that just did that thing! Thus there is guilt involved, and you have to start wondering if you are now a higher/superior species so it’s okay to eat humans, or else a lower/inferior one that is cursed to need kill humans (as you say, possibly not “need” but you feel such an overwhelmingly overpowering desire that it is basically the same thing), but either way you become separated from them, forever, as you transition into your vampire existence.

      And yes, there are multiple paths within vampirism too: those who perhaps don’t get blood so cannot maintain their sentience and devolve into animalistic creatures, and even those who don’t even need to rip out the throats of their victims but instead drink blood in little tinctures and vials and glasses like high aristocracy, who irl may likewise eat a “pork sandwich” and have no idea whether pork even means cow, pig, or chicken. The latter then may maintain the most “normal-looking” existence, where a high-royalty vampire may literally have never bared their fangs to anything, b/c they have never needed to do such?

      Thus, definitely between the universes, but also still very much within each one, there is a whole range of how much human-ness a being still possess, after becoming a vampire. If IQ = Intelligence Quotient and EQ = Emotional Intelligence (Quotient), then we can envision an HQ and/or a VQ as well, or likely they would be the same scale just at opposite ends like the political Left-Right spectrum. But if so, if may actually be more like a triangle or a 2D spectrum, with AQ (Animalistic Quotient) thrown into the mix somewhere too, where e.g. a highly humane human has a high HQ and a highly vampiric vampire has a high VQ, but an animalistic, high-AQ cannot really be much of anything b/c it just flat is too lowly and dumb. Anyway, on that spectrum, perhaps those who choose to be more like humans could decide to breathe, perhaps, while those who aim more towards the opposite side could make it a point of pride to specifically not breathe? In this formulation then, high-AQs may not breathe, and low-HQ, high-VQs may not breathe (while high-HQs do breathe), but for totally different reasons! (b/c when you start to lose your “human-ness”, you can do so either by falling towards the AQ side, or the VQ side, either of which takes you away from HQ but by different processes)

      I have more thoughts on this: do you want to hear how I think this is a metaphor for life in a Western nation?

      Okay so you need to keep in mind that Buffy was from the 90s, and even then it was ironic - I believe the phrase is “high camp”, as in it pokes fun at the things that it emulates, though those things are now decades past so it definitely would not “hit” the same as today. That said, it is emo, it is fascinating, it is one of the darkest shows ever allowed to be on television (again, at the time), and it evolves over time to incorporate a whole world of magic and mysticism - and that part you seem like you would definitely enjoy, though it may take a few seasons to get there. I would say check it out - like watch an episode and see how you like it, but even there keep in mind that early on it was still proving itself to an American audience, so it didn’t start to get TRULY dark until later. Thus, early on it is more “American teen gurl does not fit in at school angst” than “the fate of the entire world is at stake, and with a demon masquerading as the ghost of his dead friend whispering into his ear, this warlock just betrayed his best friend by stabbing him in the gut and used his blood to open up a mystic portal to unleash hell-beasts who will cause the literal and actual apocalypse”. So I am saying, as with all TV from that era, it is hit-or-miss, and so ymmv:-). But it is a cult classic favorite, and for that reason it is good to know about, so do pick at least one episode to see it for yourself, whereupon you can decide whether to watch the whole thing.

      So yeah, I recommend checking it out, with those caveats in mind:-). I’ve mentioned the others sprinkled in above… and you know what? Buffy & Angel somewhat rise to the top as my favorites, I think. It is not like I would want to re-watch them endlessly - things like Underworld hits better for like production values - but it is just one of those that sticks with you, having made an impression on your mind, you know? There’s a lot of fluff, but it being a long-form TV show allowed it to really EXPLORE things. Like one guy got possessed by a demonic jackal-demon spirit and ate (I mean in the full literal sense) his school principal, but he was a coward so pretended that he did not recall any of it, so as to avoid talking about it. In the show there is also a particular vampire who falls in love with a human (well, the boys are lining up for that gurl actually) and decides to stop killing, or like, at least tries - but he can’t, b/c it’s just too much fun. There are so many little STORIES like that, which are super hard to explore in the context of a singular or even a series of movies, but which this long-running TV series was able to work in. It is even somewhat close to reading a more imaginative book, but portrayed as a moving picture video with sound aka a different venue for delivery of that artistic expression of thought. Though again, not every episode is going to be that way for you, and some are downright boring, but even those may stick with you later on, thus are worthwhile in that different, other sense.